Opinion
304-07.
Decided May 15, 2007.
William P. Seamon, Esq., Attorney for Petitioners, Elizabeth R. Schuster and Edward J. Aluck, Esqs., of counsel, Albany, New York.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorneys For Respondents, Roger W. Kinsey, Esq., of counsel, The Capitol, Albany, New York.
In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, petitioners assert that revisions to the classification standards of certain Civil Service titles of Department of Correctional Services (DOCS)'s employees were arbitrary, capricious, irrational and contrary to the New York State Constitution, Civil Service Law and the Public Employees Federation (PEF) contract.
The Civil Service titles at issue in this proceeding are Education Supervisor (General); Education Supervisor (Vocational); Plant Superintendent B; Plant Superintendent C; and Assistant Industrial Superintendent. The title of Senior Correction Counselor was initially at issue, but the parties resolved their dispute regarding that title, which will therefore not be addressed in this decision.
Petitioners are PEF-represented DOCS employees and are working in positions with the disputed titles, which range in salary grade from grade 19 to 21. The disputed titles have classification standards that were revised in October 2006 to include the duty of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. Petitioners allege that rendering dispositions at inmate disciplinary hearings is inappropriate and in conflict with the primary functions and duties of their positions, and therefore assert that the revision of their job titles to include this duty is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners contend that such duties are properly assigned to employees in the job titles of Hearing Officer (grade 25) and Inmate Disciplinary Hearing Officer (grade M-1).
Respondents assert that the disputed job titles were properly amended to include the inmate disciplinary hearing duty. They contend that employees in the disputed job titles have the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities, and further, that they would receive training prior to conducting any hearings. Respondents further aver that the most complex inmate disciplinary hearings would not be assigned to employees in the disputed job titles and that hearing duties would never become the predominant duty of such employees. Respondents argue that the decision to add this duty to the disputed titles was a reasoned and well-analyzed decision that was not arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or contrary to law as petitioners assert.
The procedural background of this proceeding is lengthy. In summary, prior to October 2006, the disputed job titles did not contain the duty of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. It is undisputed that employees in these job titles conducted inmate disciplinary hearings prior to October 2006. Beginning in 1998 and continuing through 2002, grievances and administrative appeals were brought by PEF, asserting that conducting the hearings was out-of-title work for employees in the disputed job titles. In 2001, the Appellate Division of the Third Department issued a decision, holding that it was out-of-title and inappropriate for Senior Correction Counselors to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings, in light of their primary duty of counseling inmates. This is the job title that is no longer at issue in the present proceeding. In August 2006, the Governor's Office of Employee Relations (GOER) upheld petitioners' grievance appeals, at the recommendation of respondents, and found that conducting the inmate disciplinary hearings did constitute out-of-title work for petitioners. Petitioners had also sought additional compensation, at the level of a Hearing Officer, grade 25, for conducting the hearings. GOER determined that although the work was out of title, it did not require additional compensation because it was equivalent to grade 18 work. In October 2006, respondents amended the disputed job titles to include language that employees in such titles "[m]ay assist with, conduct, and/or make determinations on inmate disciplinary hearings."
The parties are in agreement that the inmate disciplinary hearings, which are also known as Tier III inmate disciplinary hearings, or Superintendent's hearings, involve the most serious forms of inmate misbehavior. Inmate misbehavior within a correctional facility may be classified as Tier I, least serious, through Tier III, most serious.
The heart of the dispute is petitioners' contention that it is inappropriate for employees in the disputed job titles to conduct Tier III inmate disciplinary hearings because it conflicts with or is inconsistent with their primary job duties. Petitioners also assert that the complexity and nature of Tier III hearings makes it inappropriate for employees in the disputed job titles to be conducting them. Petitioners argue that the civil service examinations for these job titles, and the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for the primary duties of the disputed job titles, do not test for or require the same qualifications and skill sets as are needed to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings. Petitioners allege that respondents inappropriately altered the disputed job titles to include this duty after the August 2006 determination from GOER that the hearing work was out-of-title work for the disputed job titles.
Petitioners rely heavily on Woodward v GOER, which held that a Senior Correction Counselor should not be conducting inmate disciplinary hearings in light of the primary duties of that job title, which involve counseling inmates directly ( 279 AD2d 725 [3rd Dept 2001]). Petitioners assert that the holding also applies to the disputed job titles.
Respondents assert that the PEF grievances on this issue precipitated respondents to do a full analysis of the job titles in question and the duties of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. Respondents assert that the reclassification was not an improper attempt at validating inappropriate out-of-title work, but rather was a concerted effort at updating the job titles in question after comprehensive analysis and evaluation. Respondents also note that the classification standards for the job titles in question had not been updated for 25 to 40 years.
Respondents conducted a general review of the nature and types of hearings conducted throughout the state workforce and looked at the qualifications required for different types of hearings. Respondents concluded that the inmate disciplinary hearings were of varying complexity and that non-attorney DOCS employees should only be assigned the routine hearings which do not raise complex issues of fact or law. Respondents identified the type of knowledge, skills and abilities required to conduct the routine inmate disciplinary hearings and concluded that the knowledge and abilities were general in nature and held by many employees at DOCS, including employees in the disputed job titles.
Respondents allege that the reclassification of the disputed job titles was permissible and also is necessarily limited by the GOER determinations which would require employees in the disputed job titles to conduct only routine inmate disciplinary hearings, and only after being trained and with appropriate supervision, with such hearings never becoming their primary duty. Respondents assert that Woodward v GOER is limited to one job title and that the disputed job titles at issue in the present proceeding do not have the professional counseling relationship or contact with inmates that was the case in Woodward with Senior Correction Counselors. Respondents argue that the changes to the classification specifications of the disputed job titles were made in accordance with respondents' statutory duties and that the changes are not arbitrary, capricious, irrational or contrary to law and should therefore be upheld.
Petitioners assert that respondents' assertions and contentions are a subterfuge and that the reason the classification specifications were changed was so that DOCS could continue to assign employees in the disputed job titles the hearing work after the finding of GOER that it was out-of-title work.
The standard of review applicable to this proceeding is well established and not in dispute:
Administrative determinations concerning position classifications are of course subject to only limited judicial review, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis.
( Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910, 912; see also Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 503). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the determination at issue was "arbitrary, capricious or affected by an error of law" ( CSEA, Inc. v State Univ. of New York, 280 AD2d 832, 833 [3rd Dept 2001]; see also Cove, 71 NY2d at 912; Benson v Roswell Park Cancer Institute Corp. Merit Bd., 302 AD2d 939, 941 [4th Dept 2003]).
As relevant to this proceeding, the New York State Constitution provides that civil service appointments "shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination . . ." (NY Const. Art. 5, § 6). Regarding out-of-title work, Civil Service Law § 61(2) provides in relevant part that "no person shall be assigned to perform the duties of any position unless he has been duly appointed, promoted, transferred or reinstated to such position in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules prescribed thereunder."
Respondents have the authority to classify and revise the classification specifications for civil service titles as required (Civil Service Law § 118).
The basic principle underlying a reclassification of civil service employees is clear. It may conform positions, particularly in the higher or unlimited grades, to the actual assignments of duties being performed by particular incumbents and simply provide for the establishment of more precise new titles, new job descriptions, and adjustments in salary. Such a reclassification is not subject to criticism, provided it does not embrace an attempted validation of an existing invalid practice.
( Roche v Wagner, 34 Misc 2d 920, 922 [Sup. Ct. NY Co. 1962], aff'd, 18 AD2d 647 [1st Dept], aff'd, 12 NY2d 314).
Respondents have provided evidence that an extensive analysis of hearing work conducted statewide was performed. Respondents also provided evidence that the specific knowledge and abilities required to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings were considered and analyzed and the specific disputed job titles were found appropriate to conduct such hearings based upon this analysis and evaluation.
The specific types of knowledge and abilities necessary to conduct the inmate disciplinary hearings included the following: knowledge of DOCS rules and regulations and standards of inmate conduct; knowledge of administrative procedures necessary to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings; ability to understand and interpret written materials, statements and representations; ability to communicate clearly; ability, with appropriate training, to determine what proof satisfies a "substantial evidence" standard; ability to use reasonable discretion and judgment when evaluating appropriate action and penalties related to an offense; and the ability to render written decisions pursuant to a prescribed format. The classification specifications for Educational Supervisors, dated November 1976, which encompass the General and Vocational titles at issue herein, provide that such employees supervise groups of teachers or instructors and may perform some administrative tasks. The specifications provide, specific to DOCS, as follows:
In those facilities of the Department of Correctional Services where positions of Education Counselor exist, incumbents of those positions perform many of the activities and tasks related to the guidance, placement and direction of students within the education program which would typically be performed by incumbents of positions of Education Supervisor.
The typical tasks include supervising the facility's education program, evaluating teachers or instructors, determining students' needs and evaluating their progress, and preparing reports, in addition to other duties. The minimum qualifications include one year of service as a Teacher IV, Vocational Instructor IV, and, for the General position, possession of a provisional principal's or supervisor's certificate, and, for the Vocational position, possession of a provisional teaching certificate for vocational or industrial arts and six graduate or undergraduate hours in educational supervision, educational administration and/or guidance.
The classification specifications for Plant Superintendent B and C, dated March 1967, provide that such employees are administrative and managerial employees responsible for centralizing physical plant operations and their duties include supervising subordinate staff, and reviewing, planning and supervising new construction and maintenance work and preparing reports associated with such work, in addition to other duties. The minimum qualifications include experience with planning and supervision of construction, operation and maintenance of buildings and a management background, and may include substitution of technical school or college training for some of the required work experience.
The classification specifications of an Assistant Industrial Superintendent, dated August 1981, provide that such employees oversee purchases, write specifications, approve estimates, correspond with vendors and State agencies, and prepares reports, in addition to other duties. The minimum qualifications include work experience in industrial engineering or manufacturing operations, and, depending on the extent of work experience, may also include a bachelors degree in engineering or business administration.
Notably, the involvement of employees in the disputed job titles in conducting inmate disciplinary hearings is limited by the GOER grievance determinations. Employees will undergo specific training prior to conducting inmate disciplinary hearings, specifically training in the rules and regulations regarding inmate behavior and procedures for the hearings. Employees will receive step-by-step instructions on conducting the hearings. They will also be prohibited from conducting complex hearings, which include any complex issues of fact or law or any cases likely to set precedent. Complex hearings that require knowledge and abilities of attorneys will be assigned accordingly to attorney hearing officers. All hearing decisions are subject to an internal appeal process and also judicial review. Further, the hearings will not be permitted to become the primary task of any of the employees in the disputed job titles.
Respondents have provided evidence of detailed analysis and evaluation of the specific job titles at issue and the inmate disciplinary hearing tasks, which refutes petitioners' contention that the change in classification standards was merely a subterfuge. Petitioners also failed to establish how the disputed job titles are sufficiently similar to the Senior Correction Counselor title, at issue in Woodward. Woodward is clearly regarding one specific title which involved direct professional counseling of inmates, which is not the situation with any of the disputed job titles.
The Court finds that the duties of the Educational Supervisor have not been established by petitioners to conflict with the duties involved in conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. The Senior Correction Counselor position differs in that it involves the counseling of inmates. An Education Supervisor's primary duties are supervising teachers and instructors. Additionally, the Court finds that Plant Superintendents and Industrial Superintendents may appropriately conduct inmate disciplinary hearings based upon the minimum qualifications for such positions and based upon the requisite knowledge and abilities that employees in such positions necessarily possess, as set forth above. In summary, the Court finds that, upon a review of the duties and qualifications of the disputed job titles, the addition of the duty of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings, as limited as set forth above, is a logical extension of the other duties of these job titles. The disputed job titles involve duties that include daily evaluation and decision-making skills, which are inherent skills necessary for conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. The Court is required to look beyond the literal job titles in question and look to the actual duties performed by individuals in those titles: individuals in the disputed job titles engage in analytical and consequential decision-making for DOCS on a daily basis in conjunction with their primary duties. The addition of the duty of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings to the disputed job titles is not wholly irrational or without rational basis considering the other duties of those titles.
Based upon the above, the Court concludes that a rational basis exists for respondents' revision of the classification specifications of the disputed job titles of Education Supervisor (General and Vocational), Plant Superintendent (B and C) and Assistant Industrial Superintendent to include the duty of conducting inmate disciplinary hearings. Petitioners failed to establish that the subject revision was wholly arbitrary and without any rational basis.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the petition is dismissed.
This shall constitute the decision, order and judgment of the Court. All papers are returned to the attorney for respondents, who is directed to enter this Decision/Order/Judgment without notice and to serve all attorneys of record with a copy of this Decision/Order/Judgment with notice of entry.
Papers Considered:
Notice of Petition, dated January 11, 2007; Petition, dated and sworn to January 11, 2007, with annexed Exhibits A through T; Affidavit of Andrew S. Criscolo, sworn to January 6, 2007 (claim withdrawn); Affidavit of Larry Woodward, sworn to January 9, 2007; Affidavit of Theodore Fauss, sworn to January 8, 2007; Brief on Behalf of Petitioners, dated January 12, 2007;
Verified Answer, dated and sworn to March 13, 2007; Affidavit of Nicholas J. Vagianelis, sworn to March 13, 2007, with annexed Exhibits A through Q; Memorandum of Law, dated March 13, 2007;
Reply Brief on Behalf of Petitioners, dated March 22, 2007.